Against the unanimity rule

The unanimity rule causes member states to wait instead and be passive instead of being involved.

There are at least four reasons for this:

Thinking along with France and Germany, to have and show good will, it’s not rewarded. On the contrary, chances are high one has to contribute more to the EU budget.

It’s not rewarded because of this (the point above) by the people of member states, so democracy stays limited and locked up behind the seperate nation-state. Democracy should cross-border the nation-states.

In additition to this, the government (of the country) can be accused by the people of being busy too much with Europe, instead of their country.

There’s no necessity to be involved, because the member states can give their opinion and use their veto at the end of the process.

The argument that a member state can block the whole process and decision-making, is not enough argument. In the current situation member states probably don’t block laws and regulations, as we have seen (the case with the Walloons was an exception and was about democracy), since they have not been involved. Member states have in general followed the EU (when the decisions which are taken are acceptable). So when member states get involved, as a consequence of not deciding by unanimity, that problem would dissolve by itself and of course by the abolishment of the unanimity rule itself.